ADDITIONAL PUNE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT PUNE
(BEFORE :- PRESIDENT :- Smt. Pranali Sawant )
MEMBER :- Smt. Sujata Patankar )
************************************************************************
Complaint No. : APDF/151/2007
Date of filing :- 28/09/2007
Date of decision :- 25/10/ 2011
Dr. Manohar T. Naududkar, .. )
Plot No.280/281, “Indraprastha” Society, .. )
Next to Akashwani, Pune-Solapur Road, .. )
Hadapsar, Pune. .. )… COMPLAINANT
: versus:
Mr. Jeetendra N. Lade, (Orion Studios) ..)
F-4, ‘B’ Building, Wing – II, Plot No.119/120/121/122, ..)
Veer Ashoka Co-Operative Housing Society, ..)
Next to Mt. Carmel High School, ..)
Lullanagar, Pune – 411 040. ..)… OPPONENT
For Complainant : Advocate Smt. Jayashri Kulkarni
For Opponent : In person
*********************************************************************
Per : MEMBER, Smt. Sujata Patankar
//JUDGMENT//
(1) On 24/11/2008 the consumer complaint No. APDF/151/2007 was dismissed by this Forum. As per order dtd. 6/4/2010 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai in Appeal No. 642 of 2009, the matter is remanded back to the Forum to give opportunity to both the parties to lead their respective evidence as per the provisions of Section 13 ( 4 ) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(2) The facts in brief which gave rise to the present complaint are as follows.
The Complainant wanted to built bungalow, for which the Complainant had given the work of his bungalow construction work as per contract dtd. 22/10/2004 to the Opponent, who is Architect, Designer, Planner & Contractor. It is the contention of the Complainant that the moment signed the contract, the Opponent started demanding money for work but always more than required, saying that he requires for further work in advance, so that the work will be with great speed. It is further stated that slowly the work was slowed down without any reason. Only few workers working on the site. If the Complainant ask, the Opponent will say that the present work is very skillful, so only skilled workers are working. Many times the Opponent was not available to discuss the matter. It is also the contention of the Complainant that at finishing stage of civil work, he started demanding money for finishing items, which the Complainant paid him or to the agencies he recommended. But after getting this amount, the Opponent left the job, leaving the incomplete civil work and purchased inadequate quantities of finishing items. Thus according to the Complainant, the Opponent put the Complainant under tremendous mental pressure. Nor he neither his agencies were ready to help the Complainant. Thus the Complainant has requested to direct the Opponent to pay compensation to the Complainant as follows :-
1) The left over work will cost about Rs.8,63,271/-.
2) The work was delayed deliberately beyond 22/8/2005 and shifted to stay there on 30/4/2007. So almost 20 months were lost. The rental of Rs.30,0000/- x 12 months will be around 6,00,000/-.
3) Due to deliberate delay the Complainant has to pay interest to State Bank Of India, which is about Rs.
4) Also he has taken Rs.1,20,290/- from the Complainant in cash saying that the Complainant will not pay bill towards labour for electrical, plumbing and drainage, water proofing all toilets and flooring in toilets. He should refund this amount with interest.
5) The finishing items that he purchased were inadequate in quantity. So the Complainant has to purchase additional quantities which is mentioned in bills.
Thus :-
1. Total expenses on project :- Rs.45,52,565/-
2. Total amount paid to Jeetendra :- Rs.35,39,825/-
3. Total loss I born (A) :- Rs.10,12,740/-
4. Cash paid (Adv) (B) :- Rs 1,20,290/-
5. Interest to S.B.I. ( C ) :- Rs. 2,52,365/-
6. Rental cost ( D ) :- Rs. 6,00,000/-
Rs.30,000 x 20 months :- Rs.6,00,000/-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total loss A + B + C + D :- Rs.19,85,395/-
----------------------------------------------
(3) So the Complainant is requesting the Forum to ask the Opponent to compensate the Complainant to pay the amount of Rs.19,85,395/-. Alongwith the complaint application, the Complainant has filed payment details, agreement, non compliance letter by the Complainant to the Opponent, reminder letters, reply letters, Asian Paints Bill, various Receipts and Bills from various agencies, Invoice, SBI Pass-Book for installments and SBI Pass-Book for additional loan.
(4) After that the Complainant filed amendment application dtd. 23/2/2011. The amendment application was allowed and the amended complaint was filed on the record, by which the Complainant wanted to brought on the record that the agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Opponent on 22/10/2004. As per the agreement, the Opponent agreed to construct the area of 5506.70 sq.ft.. Also agreed the construction cost of Rs.34,70,000/- as per para No.2. And the Opponent also agreed to complete the said work before 22/8/2005 as per the para No. 6 of the agreement. As per the para No. 4 of the agreement, if there is increase in the cost of the material and it should be added in the bill. Thus these are the important terms and conditions of the agreement. But the Opponent failed to obey the terms and conditions of the agreement. Firstly, the Opponent failed to complete the work as per the mentioned period. Secondly, the Complainant paid to the Opponent Rs.35,03,534/- and also paid Rs.1,20,290/- as the advance for electrical plumbing labour. And afterwards he Opponent also assured that he would furnish all the bills of such amount. Thus the Complainant paid total amount of Rs.36,23,824/- to the Opponent but the Opponent furnished the bills of Rs.24,59,732/- in the Forum. But failed to furnish the bill of Rs.12,53,957/-. After payment of agreement cost and also the extra amount, the Opponent failed to complete the work. Hence the Complainant completed the pending work of the said bungalow and paid the expenses of such pending work from his pocket. For which, the Complainant also filed the expert opinion’s report. In that report, the architect mentioned the list of the pending work and also the valuation of pending work. The Complainant also filed the bills of the expenses which is spent by the Complainant to complete the pending work done by the Opponent. The Complainant also filed the photographs of the pending work kept down by the Complainant. Thus as per the amended complaint, according to the Complainant, the Opponent failed to complete the work as per the agreement.
(5) Thus as contended in the amended complaint, because of the deficiency in service the Complainant causes too much loss.
Particulars of the claim is as under :-
I. Cost of incomplete work of the Bungalow Rs.10,12,740/-.
II. Cash paid in advance for electrical plumbing
Labour Rs. 1,20,290/-
III. Installment paid to SBI Pune from 3/5/2006 Rs. 2,52,265/-
III. Loss by way of Rental Rs.30,000/- of
20 months Rs. 6,00,000/-
Total Loss Rs.19,85,395/-
(6) The Complainant therefore prayed that Order may be passed against the Opponent to pay Rs.19,85,395/- to the Complainant. The Complainant also filed list of documents comprising (12) documents, such as certificate of the contractor, who had done the tiles work, certificate of the contractor which had done the window works, certificate of the fabricators, certificate of the contractor which had done the electric fitting, certificate of the contractor who had done the roof tile, Bill of the roof tiles, Bill of the Sour Urja, Certificate of the contractor which had done wood work, Bill of the Asian Paints, Expert opinion of the incomplete work done by the Opponent, valuation report of the architect etc..
(7) In pursuance of the notice of appearance issued by this Forum the Opponent has filed his written statement alongwith affidavit. It is the contention of the Opponent that as per contract, the Opponent was supposed to finish the entire project at a budget which is mentioned in. After the job started to execute on site things went quite smoothly but as months passed and due to the escalation of the steel prices and delay happened on our part and some confusions which arouse and which the Complainant also knows as the Opponent had informed the Complainant that the budget which Opponent have given was very difficult to continue and that please allow the Opponent to consider and give the increase in cost of construction for the project. As per technician specification, the Opponent should have removed the exact quantities of the entire project and then fill the quotes of respective items which could have given the complete idea to the Complainant about cost. But thinking that the Opponent’s design would be in mesh on the site and that if the Opponent do not stand to complete himself with specializer team then this project would have failed on site and would have affected Opponent’s reputation too. Because of the good relation with the Complainant, the Opponent decided to take up the job at limited budget. The Opponent explained the Complainant about the details as to how he shall carry the job. The cost of entire construction without finishes would be Rs.25,35,069/- and whereas as per the contract the cost would be Rs.20,48,000/-. The Opponent was paid the amount of Rs. 35,00000/-. The Opponent still continued and paid bills of materials spent for the increase in cost of construction which amounts to Rs.2,50,736/-. Apart from the all the extra cost born the Opponent also helped the Complainant to pay the labour cost of electrical contractor, plumber, water proofing in all toilets labour for flooring and dado in toilets, which amounts to Rs.1,20,290/- . Thus according to the Opponent he had spent Rs.3,71,026/- from their own pocket. It is further stated that as things started to go beyond his limits, the Opponent had intimated the Complainant about the same and suggested the Complainant to get the work done on cost to cost basis of different items from him. But he did not get justification from the Complainant. All his letters and conversation between him and the Complainant are submitted. The Opponent was told to terminate from this job as the Opponent did not attended his site because the Complainant never understood the situation and analyze it for good. The Complainant has failed to pay his professional fees of Rs.80,000/- out of which he had received Rs. 45,000/-. The Opponent did not ask from the Complainant that the Opponent shall never asked the extra amount also which Opponents have spent from his pocket. The Opponent always tried to justify to the Complainant for his job, which the Complainant clearly knows but is trying to extract more amounts from Opponent whereas it is Complainant’s bungalow which the Complainant is going to stay then how can anyone pay the cost of construction for it. The Opponent request further that it needs an arbitrator (architect forum) to evaluate and come to conclusion for the above dispute. Alongwith the written statement, the Opponent has filed letters sent by him to the Complainant and various bills.
(8) On 18/5/2011, the Opponent filed written statement of reply with list of documents. It is the contention the Opponent that as per agreement, the entire finishes of the bungalow in total construction shall cost Rs.34,70,000/-. It also mentions the details of item listed in the contract document i.e. all the RCC work, foundation and other civil items. Whereas the Complainant is trying to misinterpret the document with finishing items. No doubt that it is signed by the Architect, it states all the items of finishing that will start only after completion of all civil works mentioned in the contract document and these are the items that would required after basic RCC works i.e. almost a year after the start of work, signing finishing items documents means that these are the items that would be caused minimum at the time when the finishing work starts. And for these reasons, he had an escalation clause mentioned in the original document which is signed by the owner and agreed as per terms. Now mention clearly in the clause is that any increase in price of materials required for the above clauses in purchase of material specified in the contract shall be allowed to the Architect (Contractor) and shall be added or deducted as per the agreement terms. The Complainant was trying to put pressure on the Architect to furnish the entire job i.e. RCC, civil works and finishing items in the total cost of Rs.34,70,000/-. Whereas the total area of construction of the bungalow is as per site and contract document executed to 5506 sq.ft.. Hence the total cost would be Rs.34,70,000/- + 14,52,275/- = 49,22,275/- . So now dividing the final amount with total construction area it will be as Rs.49,22,275/- / 5506 = Rs.893/- per sq.ft. cost of execution, which is far more cheaper then the market cost during 2005. After the job started to execute on site things went quite smoothly but as months passed and due to the escalation of the steel prices and delays happened on our part and same confusion which arose and which the Complainant knows that I had informed that the budget which I have given was very difficult to continue and that please allow us to consider and give the increase in cost of construction for the project. All the questions and problems that has arose when the cost started to rise in construction, I had removed the quantities of the project and have filled the basic market rates of item of construction only and which will give you a clear picture as to the cost of entire construction without the finishes would be Rs.25,35,069/-. And whereas as per the contract, the cost would be Rs.20,48,000/-. The Opponent intimated the rise in cost of construction to the Complainant. It is also further stated that after he was paid the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- from which I did completed most of the works in bungalow so that finishes would be started. Most of finishing items like marble, tiles for toilets, fittings, electrical wires and switches, were all purchased under the paid said amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. He still continued and paid the bills of material spent for increase in cost of construction which amounts to Rs.2,03,534/-. The Opponent also paid the labour cost of electrical work contractor, plumber, water proofing in all toilets and labour for flooring and dados in toilets which amounts to Rs.1,20,290/-. It means that he had already spent Rs. 3,23,534/- from his own pocket. The Opponent told to the Complainant to terminate from this job as he did not attended his site because he never understood the situation and analyze it for good, each time he requested terminating from the job is not that simple which the Complainant thinks that by writing letters, the Complainant remove him from contract. The termination of contract is entirely different process for which the Complainant needs to appoint another architect with prior concern of the previous architect, and should have taken a meeting that anyone of the offices with two witnesses and sat all for final conclusion and then clearing all the bills up to the stages where the job needed to be terminated and that all the dues of the previous architect needed to be cleared. Therefore the Opponent intimated to the Complainant about this procedure but he never wanted to do so. He did not bother to pay attention to any of my letters, and started accusing me and threatening me for this. After all there is something called humanity, the Complainant has also failed to pay my professional fee of Rs.80,000/-, out of which I have received Rs.45,000/- after sign the contract, its now five years for this amount, yet we did not bother him. Without giving the completion certificate from the Opponent, the Complainant occupied the building and using water and electricity. As regards valuation report, the Opponent has submitted that expert’s advice is regarding items that are not completed by the Opponent which the Complainant states but it does not prove the cost factor or escalation of the price in construction of the bungalow. Furthermore, his valuation reports have no meaning to this case and do not prove anything or any such part for which the Complainant has filed the case. This was not required at all. Infact the Opponent really appreciate the works and documentation which the experts architect has done and which he was asked to do. He has not been guided properly as to what should have been done. In his report, he mentions that the drawings were not given to him then how is that he furnished all the unwanted data. That means he has studied only the past case details and handed over the opinion which is right on his part. According to the Opponent atleast two or three expert opinions are needed to remove the exact qualities of the entire project with respect to all drawings and filled in the rates so that the total cost could have revealed and then the evaluation and not valuation of remaining items should be drafted. The fight is regarding misconduct of not following the compliance of the contract, but also regarding increase in cost which the Complainant is till today not trying to understand. It is also further submitted that an important point that the Opponent need to clear the meaning of built up area and actual construction area. For any small scale bungalow project built up area has following factors – ground floor area (excluding car park) + first floor area (including balconies) + terrace (50%) . Now the actual construction cost of the building would be derived on the actual detailed working drawings of all plans, and which is as per (plinth area (50%) + total first floor flat slab area + total terrace slab area + entire sloping roof slab area with all projections) = and this area will be exactly more then the built up area. And its on this area the contractor is awarded the construction work, which is what exactly our contract document of first part states, and then the finishing items. The Complainant has filed an amendment letter mentioning the claims he intends to claiming for cost of SBI loan installments + loss by way to rentals. Whereas he has borrowed the loan for construction and not for the Opponent and the question does not arise of rental claims because its an issue which is totally blind. Alongwith this say, the Opponent has also filed list of documents dtd.18/5/2011, comprising, Statement of Reply against the amendment application by the Complainant with detailed explanation of the case from 2007 to 2011, Payments detailed sheet of various agencies and materials paid by Orion Studios, Quantities comparison Excel Sheet for conclusion of exact cost analysis of the construction by 3 different agencies with rates of 2004/2005, Architectural Detailed drawings of bungalow and structural drawings, Copies of all challans of materials purchased, for the construction includes steel, cement, sand, bricks, tiles marbles, sanitary fittings, pipes etc., Cash memos of all payments made to various labors and agencies in by cash only, Copies of all letters of co-ordination with the complainant during the dispute regarding increase in price of materials, and timely reply of all letters with regards to the Complainant letters.
(9) The Complainant has filed written notes of arguments. As also valuation report dtd. 17/2/2011by Govt. Registered Valuers & Chartered Engineers, Mr. Kailash B. Gadade. The Complainant has also filed bills and payment pertaining to prices of cement and steel.
(10) Taking into consideration, the complaint, documents, amended plaint, documents, affidavits, valuation report of Mr. Kailash B. Gadade alongwith certificate, ground floor, first floor and roof floor plan, photographs and written statement alongwith documents the earlier order of this Forum and the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Mumbai on the record and the arguments advanced by both the parties, the following points arouse for our consideration?
Points Answers
1} Whether the Opponent has rendered deficiency
in service to the Complainant? … Yes.
2} What order? … As per final order.
(11) There is agreement dt. 22/10/2004 executed in between the Complainant and the Opponent produced by the Complainant on the record alongwith this complaint application. The Opponent has not denied the contents of the agreement in his written statement. Hence it is undisputed fact that the Complainant is a “consumer” of the Opponent.
(12) Point No.1 :- As per agreement between both the parties the consideration agreed in between the parties is Rs.34,70,000/- for the construction of area 5506 sq.ft.. The agreement is executed on 22/10/2004 and from the date of commencement within ten months the construction of bungalow of the Complainant is required to be completed as per agreement. It means that on 22/8/2005 the construction of Complainant’s bungalow is required to be completed. At first time, the Complainant sent a letter on 25/4/2005 to the Opponent for the non compliance with agreement to construct a bungalow at Indraprastha, Plot No. 280/281 in Hadapsar, in which it is stated as follows:
“You have slowed down the work and still demanding more finance from me for the work. I have told you to finish the RCC work for which I have paid you already. If you want finance for the finishing items we can give you that provided you demand for finishing items once you complete the RCC work or alongwith RCC work if any finishing item is required, by you specify that.
If I find the RCC work is not in full progress by 15th May 2005, I have no option but to take a stringent legal action against you”.
After that on 6/2/2006, secondly the Complainant sent a letter to the Opponent with the subject matter “very very slow work at my Bungalow site i.e. Plot No. 280/281 at “INDRAPRASHTA”, Hadapsar.
“With great pains, I have to write this letter. After receiving this letter, I hope you will speed up the works and you will relieve my worries. Since the start of work, you have always delayed the work inspite of me paying you the required money on your demand. ………………………. So by now I have to pay you nill. Only I want your reply when you will complete the work ”.
It means that as per the agreement agreed in between both the parties, the Complainant paid for the construction of his bungalow but as per time stipulated in the agreement, the Opponent failed to do the complete construction of bungalow. This fact the Complainant time and again pointed out to the Opponent by sending letters.
The Opponent send reply letter dtd. 3/3/2006 to the Complainant in which it is stated as follows :
“I once again apologize for whatever has happened and that I keep a good respect for you and my all wishes to you till you live happily and with good relationship further with me. I also request you to please try and remove any false feelings in from your mind about me and try to evaluate things in better and professional manner, so that you may never feel any odd things about in future. I am and will always count you first for the success of my future any time and wherever so. I also appreciate your kindness that you have always been good and co-operative with me at times and that have always consulted me for anything about your bungalows and for that I have seen to it that you have never been cheated any time. I request you to please also give me a letter stating that I am no longer associated with your works ”.
As per the contention of the Opponent in their letter itself shows that the Opponent himself has admitted that there is no any delay for payment by the Complainant whatever necessary expected to the construction. The Opponent himself apologized for delay in construction in his letter sent by him to the Complainant dtd.3/3/2006.
As also in letter dtd.8/3/2006 sent by the Complainant to the Opponent, in which it is stated as follows :-
“I received your letter today and I was surprised to see that you have decided to cancel the contract to construct my bungalow at Plot No. 280/281, “INDRAPRASTHA”, Hadapsar, Pune. After taking full and above payment towards the construction, you have decided to keep the work incomplete in such a way that I am put in a trouble by all possible tricks you have in your mind. This clearly shows your intention to cheat me and not adhering to the terms and conditions of the contract made between us; ever after taking full payment from me, as decided/agreed in the contract. So finally, I have decided to cancel the agreement signed by us to construct my Bungalow before you put me still in a biggest ditch, provided you fulfill some conditions”.
In this letter, the Complainant also put some terms and conditions before the Opponent for completion of the construction work. “As per my previous letter as you have delayed the work purposely and deliberately, you are liable to pay compensation as follows :-
i) Interest paid to SBI till the Bungalow is complete.
ii) My losses around Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month as income from my Bungalow.
iii) Legal expenses.
This compensation to be paid w.e.f. 22nd Aug.2005.
h) Any technical problems or any difficulty arises for my workers, you
should come and rectify the problem without any fees and without
any delay.
This all writing work, I have to do, is because of your last moment decisions and not giving any single hint that you are going to cheat me in this manner”.
After that by letter dtd.3/5/2007 sent by the Opponent to the Complainant in which it is stated that
“Sorry, but I do not understand how to start with, as l am writing to you after along time. I have sent couple of messages and written letter to you as to how about your further works of the bungalow you are willing to carry out and I have also mentioned you that I am willing to co-operate with you and assist you in my best possible ways. But I feel you still have not forgiven me. Anyway, sir I have been telling and apologizing many times that please leave all this aside and lets get together and work out in a friendly way. I have always seen that my clients should be more comfortable and happy in getting their house because I would really like to see them grow in a different way of life. Let me not waste your time and I am really looking forward to hear from you soon and positively”.
It reveals that this time again the Opponent apologized the Complainant for delay in construction work on his own side. In addition to that in the written statement of the Opponent, there is no any single word or whisper of the Opponent for grievances against the Complainant for non-payment by the Complainant due to which delay is caused to the Opponent for constructing the work of the bungalow of the Complainant and also not any whisper about payment in the reply letter sent by him to the Complainant also. It is the case of the Opponent in the written statement that there is rising of material prices and therefore the cost of the construction was to be hiked and in the written statement the Opponent has filed various receipts for payments.
(13) Earlier the complaint decided on merit on 24/11/2008 as per dismissal order. The Complainant aggrieved before State Commission by preferring an appeal bearing No. 642/09, in which the order is passed on 6/4/2010 in appeal proceedings and the matter is remitted back to the Forum by giving opportunities to both the parties to lead their respective evidence as per the provision of Section 13 ( 4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thereafter, both the parties remained present before the Forum. The Complainant filed amendment application and this amendment application is allowed. When the matter is came before the Forum for rehearing, the Complainant filed valuation report of Government Registered Valuer And Chartered Engineer, Shri. K.B. Gadage. After perusal of the valuation report, Shri. Gadade has given in detail abstract of deficiency in work as on March-2006. As per valuation report, there is cost of deficiency work of bungalow of the Complainant is Rs.9,96,509/- and total cost of construction as on 30/3/2006 of completion work is Rs.23,89,020/- and cost of remaining work is of Rs.5,97,255/-. After filing valuation report, the Opponent did file say but not file any counter-evidence in the context of valuation report except denial.
(14) The Complainant came with the case that even after receipt of required payment given by the Complainant from time to time, the Opponent still delayed in the construction work, it means that whenever as per the requirement of the Opponent, the Complainant paid amount to the Opponent for construction of work but the Opponent failed to perform his part as per the agreement. The agreement executed in the year 2004 and as per the agreement, the Opponent required to complete the work within ten months. But as per documents filed by the Complainant on the record, the bungalow work was left incomplete by the Opponent. Consequently, the Complainant got completed his bungalow by third person by making excess payment. As per valuation report whatever work done by the Opponent is came on the record and whatever work is incomplete also came on the record. As per valuation report, the work of the bungalow of the Complainant is in incomplete situation. Moreover, in support of the contention of the Complainant for incomplete work, the Complainant has also filed photographs. On perusal of which it is evident that the Opponent had left whatever work incomplete. Moreover, the Opponent has not averred single word or any documentary evidence.
(15) There is no documentary evidence on the record to show that the Complainant had failed to perform his part in terms of payment of money or there is no any documentary evidence on the record which shows that the Opponent demanded the money from the Complainant and that the Complainant did not pay the amount in time. Moreover there is no any contention in the written statement of the Opponent that there is delay on the part of the Complainant for payment. As also, after perusal of the letter sent by the Opponent to the Complainant it shows that the Opponent himself admitted for delay in construction on his own side. In our opinion, indirectly, the Opponent has admitted for not complying the construction work in time as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.
(16) The valuation report filed by the Complainant in support of his contention regarding incomplete work. In the present case, the valuation report is crystal clear shows that there is incomplete work in the bungalow of the Complainant and the valuation report is one of the expert opinion taking into consideration in the eyes of law to adjudicate the appropriate justice. Thus after perusal of the expert opinion i.e. valuation report itself shows that the Opponent has rendered deficiency in service to the Complainant. As per agreement executed between both the parties the total area of construction of bungalow is of 5506.70 sq.ft. and the amount of Rs.34,70,000/- is paid for it. But as per valuation report as also in the letter by the Opponent to the Complainant dtd. 11/2/2006 the actual constructed area is of 4432 sq.ft., which means the Opponent also constructed less area (5506.70– 4432.00) 1073.30 sq.ft., other than the agreed and against this the Opponent recovered more amount from the Complainant. As per valuation report, cost of deficiency work in the bungalow is of Rs.9,96,509/- + cost of remaining work is Rs. 5,97,255/- = Rs. 15,93,764/-. Therefore, in our opinion, the Complainant is entitled to recover this amount from the Opponent alongwith interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28/9/2007.
(17) There is prayer in the prayer clause of the Complainant that the Complainant borrowed the loan from the SBI for bungalow construction and he paid the interest to SBI and therefore, the Complainant prayed to recover the amount of Rs.2,52,365/- (interest to SBI from 3/5/2006) from the Opponent. In this respect, even if it is the fact that the Complainant has borrowed loan from the SBI and paid the interest for his own loan. Hence the prayer of the Complainant of the amount of Rs.2,52,365/- for SBI for interest is not considerable. The Complainant in the complaint application has prayed for rent but did not file any documentary evidence that such type of rent has actually been paid by him by way of rent. Hence this claim of the Complainant is also not acceptable.
(18) Even after paying the entire amount of construction, the Opponent left the construction work in incomplete stage. For recovering the amount of incomplete work, the Complainant has to come up before this Forum as also before the Hon’ble State Commission, Mumbai. Therefore, he spent the money for cost of proceedings and also sustained physical and mental agony for it. Hence the Complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.
(19) Taking into consideration the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the present case as also relied upon the valuation report, as an expert opinion, we proceed to pass the following order.
// ORDER //
(1) The complaint is partly allowed.
(2) The Opponent is directed to pay
Rs.15,93,764/- to the Complainant alongwith
interest thereon @9% p.a. from 28/9/2007 till
its realization.
(3) The Opponent is directed to pay Rs.25,000/-
towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost to the Complainant.
(4) The Opponent is directed to comply the
aforesaid order within a period of (30)
days from the date of receipt of this order.
(5) Certified copies of this order be furnished to
the Complainant and the Opponents free
of costs.
(Smt. Sujata Patankar) (Smt. Pranali Sawant)
MEMEBR PRESIDE NT
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PUNE.
Place : Pune
Date : 25/10/2011
| | [ Smt. Sujata Patankar] MEMBER[ Smt. Pranali Sawant] PRESIDENT | |
